Do I have a cite? No, I don’t have a cite for her personal risk relative to the average person. Here’s why I think she’s at elevate risk relative to say, me:
She’s a candidate for president
She is or is perceived to be anti-gun
She’s a former DA and attorney general, so may have many ex-cons angry at her
Since she’s running, she’s more in the public eye than other former DAs and attorneys general, making her more of a target for those ex-cons
She an African American politician – Obama apparently received more death threats than any other presidents
She’s a progressive senator that is getting more attention than non-candidate senators, and that may trigger some loony, domestic terrorist, or other would-be killer
There are probably other reasons that I haven’t thought of.
Whereas I live in a very safe neighborhood in anti-gun NJ and, as a nobody, no one has any reason to try and kill me. I spend no time in the public eye, haven’t put anyone in jail, and no one cares about my gun views.
It seems really obvious that she’s at elevated personal risk compared to your average schmo. But, I can’t officially cite it, so this is just my opinion.
It occurs to me that there’s really another side to the statistics question. While it’s true that the average person is safer without a gun in the home, it’s not true that a gun is a danger in the home to a specific person.
Many people drive without a seat belt, ride their bike without a helmet, smoke cigarettes, drink and drive, drink to excess, have suicidal thoughts, have violent tendencies, are otherwise careless.
If I were to have a gun in my home, I’d have it locked up unloaded. I’m also the kind of person who doesn’t smoke, doesn’t ride a bike without a helmet, doesn’t speed (excessively). I’m not depressed and I haven’t committed any domestic violence whatsoever. So, it’s probably likely that having a gun in my house wouldn’t raise my risk as much as it does for the “average person”. Similarly, she spent years prosecuting crimes and has probably seen the results of gun use, careless or otherwise, and would probably be expected to treat a gun in the home with the respect it deserves. If she’s not depressed nor has suicidal thoughts, and she’s at little or no risk for domestic violence, that’s another reason why her risk would be lower.
IMO, she’s at elevated personal risk for the reasons mentioned (you may or may not agree). She may also be at reduced risk for gun ownership for the reasons above.
Certainly we can agree that many people are careless with guns, don’t store them properly, leave them out where kids find them, are depressed or at risk of domestic violence (either being a perpetrator or victim). If none of those things apply to a specific person, such as Harris or me, the other part of those statistics may be reduced.
Yes, you did. You replied to my post that she was DA of SF with “show, dont tell” and “Show anything that supports your point.” Then bitched about 'broken" wiki links as if you couldn’t Google it yourself. Then you admitted "I don’t deny that. I am well aware of her law enforcement career."
Asking for a cite on something you are* well aware of *is a silly immature game. I dont play that game. You can take your future bogus requests for cite for things you are likely already "well aware of " and put them where the sun don’t shine.
As WC Fields once said* "Go away kid, ya bother me. "*
And the politicians who knew full well it was illegal were fine with that. IMHO. They knew that some few people would panic and hand in their guns- less guns “on the street”. IMHO. They also figured that maybe the injunction would take a while, and thus the SFPD would confiscate some guns- which the owners would never get back*- and thus "less guns “on the street”. IMHO. And anything that harassed and annoyed those evil murderous gun owners was a Good Thing. IMHO.
*yes, legally you’d be allowed to get your gun back, but you’d have to hire a lawyer and sue, and the City of SF has better lawyers. Even if you did get your gun back it’d cost thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Fron the November 2005 ballot: How “H” Got on the Ballot
On December 14, 2004 the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance with supporting signatures from Supervisors Ammiano, Daly, Dufty and Gonzalez (adopted prior to the expiration of Supervisor Gonzalez’s term of office).
The City Elections Code allows four or more Supervisors to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.
Anyone who wants to peruse the relevant CCSF City Charter (I think the referenced City Attorney is the DA, but I am not sure): Elections
It wont make any difference. You guys will just complain the link is broken,** Lance **will say “Show dont tell” even tho he is already well aware of the facts, and even after I provide it you will say it doesnt make any difference because she wanted to let the courts decide- which is exactly what has been said several times now. #113Left Hand of Dorkness: "His cite is for a law that was ultimately decided to be invalid, but it’s absurd to say “she assuredly knew it was illegal.” Folks obviously have different interpretations of the constitution in this respect, and the city decided their chance of success was worth litigating it in the courts.
Procrustus "Allowing it on the ballot does not equal support. Even if it had a slim chance of passing constitutional review. I don’t think you want partisan elected officials deciding what the people get to vote on. The courts can, (and did) figure it out after the election." Banquet Bear "*if the Cit leadership objectively knew that Prop H was illegal then they wouldn’t have signed it into law. The line between “legal” and “illegal” isn’t a well defined line in the sand. So yes I’m being pedantic. Because the law is pedantic.
And the claim that “Harris knew it was illegal” because “everyone knew it was illegal” just doesn’t hold up. They signed it into law because they held the opinion that the proposition was legal. The courts ruled otherwise. That’s how things work…the politicians and legal experts who signed the proposition into law held the opinion that what they signed into law was legal. [I/I]"
So since, even if I prove my point- it will be pointless as those three have already dismissed it, why shoudl i bother?
And honestly since** lance** keeps playing silly “Are you sure you get the concept of, “Show. Don’t tell.”?” games with cites he already is "well aware of’, there no reason to bother.
Will her advertising her gun ownership impact her nomination chances (or general election chances if she got the nom) at all?
I’m guessing not. The single issue gun rights voters will be in the DrDeth mode: they have her pegged as a “gun grabber” and this clearly will not change that perception. And most who are for gun control as their prime issue are not against gun ownership per se. They are for assuring responsible ownership if they are owned. My WAG is that gun rights/control will not be a prime issue this cycle.
I’m not in the “you guys” group. The lynchpin of your argument is that Kamala signed off on a obviously illegal law. You have not even attempted to corroborate that assertion. Yet you have all the time in the world to engage in content free bickering with Lance. If you look back you’ll see that I certainly haven’t been opposed to your position throughout this thread but I’m coming to the conclusion that you are either full of shit or believing someone else who was full of shit.
Here’s the exchange:
**Lance Turbo ** Show. Don’t tell.
My response:
What do you want me to show? That ballot propositions in CA have to be cleared for legality before they are put on the ballot? Or that she was DA at that time? Either one is liek asking for proof that the sun rises in the morning, why are you asking for silly cites? Even when i provide them, you’l; just ignore them anyway, like that rest of my cites.
Lance Turbo
*Show anything that supports your point. Show that Kamala Harris had anything to do with this law. You have made several assertion, some of which appear to be factually false, but haven’t really supported anything.
When you were asked to support your assertion that Harris wanted to ban all handguns you provided a (broken) link to a Wikipedia page on which Harris’s name did not appear.
Try harder.*
So there’s your original response. You asked me to provide cites for stuff you were well aware of. You are playing silly cite games. So, i suggest you take this mallet and go over to that pile of sand. I dont play silly cite games.
So, just come up with that full list of “credible death threats starting with 1990”.